I will go with the F-22 and thanks for the reply
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Ummm ....
It could also be that this is the plan B that has been mooted and talked about for some time rather than a whole sale dumping of the JSF.
It should be cause for celebration in some areas as we get an EW capability and can buy later blocks of JSF to cut cost.
You should be happy .... because the F-22 is still not an option as it not available for sale yet.
It appears that new information has been interspersed with comments.
Lets try to dig out just the new information and consider each element in turn.
1. The USAF Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Sue Payton, has flagged intentions for curtailing and/or axing acquisition projects which are not performing, with a focus on those large projects still in development.
2. The DMO (the prescribed agency set up to buy defence materiel as opposed to doing the capability analysis and capability development work) has just set up a project office for the procurement of 24 x F/A-18F Super Hornets and, down stream, the procurement of F/A-18G Growlers.
So what is statement 1 about? First of all this is about procurement by the USAF. Sue Payton has been recently appointed (August 2006) and is introducing a new policy “Agile Acquisition”, and I suspect she is trying to make her mark. Remember such posts are political appointees. Previously she was the Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Advanced Systems and Concepts (also a political appointment). There has been much criticism of the acquisition of equipment for all the US armed forces. In a statement a few weeks ago she said (I paraphrase) "We're at war; we need to get much more capability out there as fast as we can" . Her statement was said during the announcement that Boeing CH-47 had won the contract for USAF SAR Helicopter, rather against the odds.
And statement 2. This is about the procurement of aircraft by the USN. An explanation may be that ongoing operations are consuming the remaining fatigue life of the F-18 aircraft currently in service more quickly than was originally planned and that these aircraft will have to be replaced before the F-35C enters service. It could be an indication that the USN anticipates that the JSF programme may be delayed. It is worth remembering that the plan is for F/A-18F Super Hornets to operate alongside F-35C Lightning II aircraft.
Taking both statements together suggests that the drive is for new equipment in the short term, rather than problems with medium term projects.
However, it might be necessary to delay medium term projects to fund short-term needs.
This is unlikely to affect Australia, as if ordered the JSF would be delivered well into the future.
Chris
Hang on a moment. The DMO is the Australian "Defence Material organisation" and 24 F-18F (plus F-18G .... with much cheering) is about right for the plan B interim fighter option.
Ooops, DMO I missed that bit.
The USN appear to be going ahead with additional orders as well.
Now I understand about the Australian dimension. Perhaps the problem is the timescale in which JSF can be supplied to Australia has become too late to replace the aging F-18s and that “Plan B” is being activated. Setting up a project office does not necessarily mean that the procurement of Super Hornets will go ahead, but it is an essential first step. It will allow for a detailed comparison of both aircraft and should enable Australia to make the right decision.
Just a guess, but all of the above could suggest that current US requirements necessitate the re-deployment of funds from medium term projects to meet short-term needs.
This could be the first sign that the JSF may be delayed (potentially bad news for the UK as they do not have a viable “Plan B”).
Chris
The UK has plenty of viable options if the JSF is cancelled (CTOL carriers, F-18E/Rafale/Sea Typhoon, or if only the B is cancelled (F-35C). The difficult question is how to cope with a delay. An interim buy of an alternative aircraft isn't possible without switching the carriers to CTOL, which is hard to justify just to cover a delay. Ex-USMC AV-8s won't be available if F-35B is delayed.
How much to re-activate & upgrade the stored SHARS, I wonder? Probably too late by the time a decision would be made, though . . .
There have been a lot of voices being raised in the Australian Military establishment over the JSF. Some favour the F-22 Raptor over the JSF. If the RAPTOR is okayed for export to Australia, how many in here think that the Fighter of choice would be the F-22 instead of JSF? I would personally love to see the F-22 flying in RAAF colors.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
So would many, but it cannot conduct all the roles the RAAF is required to undertake by itself and we cannot afford to procure 2 combat aircraft. Which is why ADF is content (officially) with the F-35A. It may not do somethings as well as F-22, but it does everything WE need and that's important for a small force, which RAAF IS...
F-22 would be a good trophy weapon that is about it.
The capabilities Australia would get with the F-22 are huge, stealth, air dominance, strike and a receipt from boeing with alot of numbers in it. It has been proven in past conflicts that none of those capabilities are actually required, but would be nice to have. Remember the F-111 was never used.
Its also doubtful that Australia will need high end, fast, stealthy, all weather strike capability in the future. Also air dominance to take on the best air forces in the world is also not required. When blind poorly trained suhkois are really our only competition.
Even the JSF has alot of these high end capabilities that frankly, are not that important.
The Super Hornet however is much betters:
Its stealth is good enough for 99% of its missions.
Its speed is also quick enough for 99% of missions.
Its range with inflight refueling is good enough for 99% of its missions.
Its avioinics and weapons can detect, track and kill 99% of targets.
That is good enough for me and should be for all Australians. The fact that it is cheaper and available now should seal the deal.
We dont need to spend twice as much just to cover that extra 1% when it will most likely not win the war.
The cheaper price will allow us to buy either more aircraft giving us even greater capability or that money can be spend elsewhere on weapon systems that are needed most. A couple MQ-9 and AC-130 gunships would provide the 24 hour eyes and ears to our troops on the ground with precision firepower to strike when required.
Last edited:
I like the idea of the F-18F and G combination as it adds additional capability and allows us to wait for the JSF.
I don't think we should move away from the JSF. If it provides all it is supposed to provide as it will be a much more capable aircraft than the superbug and gives us a 5th tier aircraft. The staged approach may also mean we can purchase later blocks removing a degree of risk and cost. It should be noted that while the F-111 was never used in anger it still provided and effective deterant which is just as good.
The staged approach may even allow the F-35B to be considered for the LHD's (now I am being really hopeful).
The F-22 is the best A2A platform but, as noted it is going to be very expensive and is too narrow in capability at this time. Perhaps when the superbug is due to be paid off circumstances will have changed.
If JSF is to be delayed then the F-18F/G interim buy is a pretty good option.
I don't think we should move away from the JSF. If it provides all it is supposed to provide as it will be a much more capable aircraft than the superbug and gives us a 5th tier aircraft. The staged approach may also mean we can purchase later blocks removing a degree of risk and cost. It should be noted that while the F-111 was never used in anger it still provided and effective deterant which is just as good.
The staged approach may even allow the F-35B to be considered for the LHD's (now I am being really hopeful).
The F-22 is the best A2A platform but, as noted it is going to be very expensive and is too narrow in capability at this time. Perhaps when the superbug is due to be paid off circumstances will have changed.
If JSF is to be delayed then the F-18F/G interim buy is a pretty good option.
I agree. If Australia buys 75 Super Hornets now, Australia can still buy at a later date 25 Lightnings when they are in full production. How many stealth aircraft does Australia really need for first wave strikes? A huge fleet, or a couple of squadrons? Several Super Hornets can be delivered within a couple of years, several squadrons in 6-8 years, after which the Lightnings could enter the fleet.
At the time of the Super Hornets mid-life they can receive a future update to keep them as viable aircraft.
With the Democrats controlling the Congress, I expect the Lightnings to be cancelled, if not they will surely be delayed. Australia should be expecting AT LEAST delays with the Lightning program.
At the time of the Super Hornets mid-life they can receive a future update to keep them as viable aircraft.
With the Democrats controlling the Congress, I expect the Lightnings to be cancelled, if not they will surely be delayed. Australia should be expecting AT LEAST delays with the Lightning program.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree with Alexis about the staged approach to F-35 purchases. About 24 F/G config F-18 Super Hornets would help to cover capability gaps when the F-111 retires. It would also allow SEAD operations (with the G) and can be roled as a fighter as some of the older airframe F-18 A/Bs are retired (assuming not all go through HUG).
This approach could allow more time for the F-35 to possibly (!) go down in price once it leaves LRIP, or if circumstances change, an F-22 purchase.
My own personal preference (not that this will happen) would be for the RAAF to get about 24 F-22 for air superiority, around 60 F-35 for general air to air and ground attack/strike. Then, if/when it is introduced, the proposed stealthy strike aircraft the USAF is interested in that would fufill the same role the RAAF F-111s do now. From what I remember reading the initial idea would be a 2-man, upsized F-22 or F-23 airframe. Hey, I can dream, right?
This approach could allow more time for the F-35 to possibly (!) go down in price once it leaves LRIP, or if circumstances change, an F-22 purchase.
My own personal preference (not that this will happen) would be for the RAAF to get about 24 F-22 for air superiority, around 60 F-35 for general air to air and ground attack/strike. Then, if/when it is introduced, the proposed stealthy strike aircraft the USAF is interested in that would fufill the same role the RAAF F-111s do now. From what I remember reading the initial idea would be a 2-man, upsized F-22 or F-23 airframe. Hey, I can dream, right?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I put my money on some of the USAF space programmes being hit rather than the Lightning II. They are the underperforming ones. Delays to the Lightning is a possibility, but not cancellation.
Super Bugs for interim fighter supplemented/replaced with Lightnings sounds like a fine solution to me, with the service of existing Bugs in mind. And if the threat assessment for Aust shifts disfavourably, then Raptors could be an option in the future. But max two types at a time.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It is extremely unlikely that the F-35A WILL outcost the F-22. The ONLY people suggesting this are part of the F-22 fanclub that obsess over this aircraft and are reduced to grasping at straws in attempting to convince people that if we don't buy the F-22 we are doomed.
As to directed energy weapons. It has been rumoured but I really don't think it's feasible as yet. Look at the trouble and effort the US is going to to get it's FIRST directed energy weapon into service (the 747 with the laser mounted in it). To think that an offensive weapon of such a nature could be mounted on a tactical fighter at present, seems ridiculous.
An EW version such as the DIRCM may be possible, but you have to wonder whether a single engined tactical fighter can generate sufficient power for the things...
We got lucky with the F-111C back in the day. It was delayed and we had to lease F-4 Phantoms to fill the hole by this delay. We never had to use the F-111 in anger so it was worth it at the end of the day by having this aircraft it did its other job of stopping agrression been directed towards Australia.
I don't see the F-35 coming online on time. We are going to loose the advantage in the region and we need to keep it.
I believe we need a replacement now before the F-35 comes online. A batch of F/A-18Fs would certainly be good as it would allow the remainder of our strike aircraft to be held in reserve and hold us over for the F-35 is ready.
1 Sqn for Fighter defence and 1 Sqn for Strike. Say No.75 Sqn and No.1 Sqn. This then could be expanded to the remainder of the Squadrons if the F-35 is cancelled or delayed further.
At the end of the day we could use the F-35 just for strike and save it's airframe from been stressed in it's air to air role. One of the reasons for the the current F/A-18's are in bad shape.
Question:
Can the F/A-18 do low level strike as the F-111C can do?
Could it come close to matching the F-111's current role?
Is there another aircraft type available to do this?
By the way I am not a fan of either the F-35 or the F/A-18F but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any other choice without loosing a lot of money and having nothing to show for it i.e. the 300 million invested already.
I don't see the F-35 coming online on time. We are going to loose the advantage in the region and we need to keep it.
I believe we need a replacement now before the F-35 comes online. A batch of F/A-18Fs would certainly be good as it would allow the remainder of our strike aircraft to be held in reserve and hold us over for the F-35 is ready.
1 Sqn for Fighter defence and 1 Sqn for Strike. Say No.75 Sqn and No.1 Sqn. This then could be expanded to the remainder of the Squadrons if the F-35 is cancelled or delayed further.
At the end of the day we could use the F-35 just for strike and save it's airframe from been stressed in it's air to air role. One of the reasons for the the current F/A-18's are in bad shape.
Question:
Can the F/A-18 do low level strike as the F-111C can do?
Could it come close to matching the F-111's current role?
Is there another aircraft type available to do this?
By the way I am not a fan of either the F-35 or the F/A-18F but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any other choice without loosing a lot of money and having nothing to show for it i.e. the 300 million invested already.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From what I remember being bandied about, the F-35A was suggested as being able to be fitted in the future for a directed energy weapon. Possibly a maser or something similar.
Regarding the power generation issue, I believe that was not a significant concern. The proposed siting of the energy weapon was to be in the space left vacant by the lift fans used in the -B variant. The shaft which in the -B would power the lift fans would instead be used to power the weapon. I'd have to check and see what the estimate on available power was, but is wasn't an insignificant amount.
-Cheers
I think you overestimate the RCS reduction it has over legacy aircraft. The latest advanced Russian systems are more than capable of picking it up at range. JSF on the otherhand has multiple times the ability to get in and get out unseen.
For all those that are so caught up in wanting F-22 let me say that she has no ability to fire REAL stand off weapons. You might argue she doesn't have to worry about detection so a JDAM or small diameter bomb is all she needs but it is not INVISIBLE! If Serbia can shoot down an F-117, which is several times more stealthy than F-22, the Raptor can be discovered if she gets too close. The JSFs ability to fire stand-off weapons and naval strike weapons is a must for RAAF. It more than makes up for F-22s ability to get CLOSER and put itself in harms way. JSF, if given the right price, is perfect for RAAF.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Big-E, I don't suppose you could enlighten us about some of the aspects of using the SDB, could you? I'm wondering about things like what the max speed it can be dropped/deployed at, what the average time it takes an SPD to reach a target 60 n miles away, that sort of thing. It has to do with the viability of the F-22 as an SDB deploying platform.
Thanks!
Thanks!